Well what color was it? Drab bluish? And the characeters didn't mesh well enough. Uh, I agree with Dennis, Connor Trinner should have been Captain. Bacula was trying too hard to be thirty something. The strain on his face was too much paired with the dour one on T'Pol's face and Trip is supposed to be the curmudgeon.

Also Bacula was just too ubiquitous and not intense enough and then he just tuned mean and nasty and miserable when coto came in. Trip was supposed to be McCoy and be a naysayer and he had to perk up and be an optomist because nobody else was.

I'm not challenging your opinion that Enterprise was "devoid of color and character."

I am challenging your assertion that the stylistic choices of the production design were in some way motivated by Rick Berman's fiscal proprietary sense. Thus far, you have not provided any reliable information to back up that claim.

Well subtlety and subdued music cues and dull, dreary backgrounds made it indistinct and uninteresting to me. He was always buying cheap chicken and he probably carried a time piece in his vest all while lighting his cigarettes with twenty dollar bills. Get my point? It's a business like McDonalds.

1) I read The Making of Deep Space Nine too, and I think you're missing the point of the "cheap chicken" anecdote. You are taking a gag from Berman's working relationship with Piller as writers and trying to use it as evidence to discredit the guy. That's not academically fair, it is intellectually dishonest and frankly, it reeks of lazy thinking on your part. Is this the best you can do to defend your point? Is this the most salient argument you have to support your claim?

2) You are still providing me with your opinions about Enterprise. I am not questioning your opinions, despite disagreeing with them. I am however challenging your assertions --which you are presuming and perpetuating as fact, solely because you didn't like the product he was producing-- and asking you for hard, legit sources to back up your so-far-spurious claims.

If you can't back up your shit though, man up and just admit it - you didn't like the show. That's no reason to cast aspersions on the people who worked hard to produce that show, whether you liked it or not, never mind the fact that we are sitting here, six years after the show wrapped arguing about its merit.

If you're going to go down the tired, one-note road of Berman bashing, at least have the stones to admit to it.

I said he probably made it devoid of color to save money because to me his stingy sure footed approach would lend itself to not taking any extravagant risks such as color as standing out could get your show cancelled sooner. Since he ran the show and his vision was what we were seeing it would make sense that he might take the cheap chicken approach. What makes you think that saving money is a bad thing anyway, and being stingy as well as greedy? Now I'm making a joke, but your point is extremely intangential. Is that a word? How about indifferential?